New Evidence the Letter to Theodore Wasn't Forged in the Twentieth Century

In 1958, Morton Smith photographed a manuscript that has haunted scholars ever since. This text—allegedly a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria—appeared within a 1646 edition of Vossius, housed at the Mar Saba monastery, and has since been a lightning rod for controversy. I recently revisited the original photographs Smith took of this manuscript, and though I lack the technical expertise to solve all the lingering questions, I believe these photos reveal important physical evidence that undermines the charge that Smith forged the text. Initially, my inquiry focused on whether the alignment of the right margin might indicate that the page was bound before the manuscript was written. 

In most books, a pre-existing binding will subtly shape how text aligns along the edge, but something even more interesting emerged from the photographs—something about the condition of the paper itself. Upon closer inspection, it became clear that the physical state of the pages suggests that the writing predated the curling and fraying visible in the manuscript today. This observation carries weight. If the text was written on flat, even surfaces—surfaces that later curled due to environmental exposure—then it is much harder to believe that the manuscript was forged in haste just before Smith took his photographs.

The photos in question, specifically those of the second and third pages, offer the most compelling clues. The verso of the first blank page and the recto of the second blank page have been reproduced in Smith’s 1973 publication, though at a significantly lower resolution. In the printed book, the cropped margins and halftone printing obscure important details. Seeing the original photograph in its uncropped form, however, reveals the fraying and curling of the pages along the edges—consistent with the natural deterioration of aging paper.

The Vossius edition, as many are aware, was missing its front cover when Smith discovered it, though the rear cover remained intact. Smith’s photograph of the coverless front page shows that it lay flat, at least at the time he captured the image. But these blank pages at the end of the book tell a different story. The pages in the back appear to have curled into each other, becoming rough and uneven over time, as if exposed to condensation—perhaps after the book arrived at Mar Saba. The contrast between the flat front pages and the curling end pages provides an essential clue. The curling likely developed later, during the book’s time in the dry desert conditions of the monastery.

These curling patterns point to a key question: when did the manuscript's text get written? If, as some critics allege, Smith forged the manuscript, the text would have to have been written on these curled and uneven surfaces. But the photographs strongly suggest that this scenario is improbable. Writing on warped surfaces—especially ones where pages have curled into each other—poses several difficulties. The handwriting in the manuscript is remarkably even, with carefully formed letters and perfectly straight lines. It is hard to imagine how anyone, let alone a supposed amateur forger, could produce such neat writing on an unstable surface. Ink would have bled along the ridges of curled paper; letters would show signs of distortion from uneven pressure. And yet, no such flaws appear in the manuscript. The text flows smoothly across the page, uninterrupted by any sign that the surface beneath it was warped.

Even more telling is the alignment of the edges. When the second blank page is folded over the first, the raised and frayed edges align perfectly. This alignment suggests that the two pages curled into each other over time—a gradual process, likely due to condensation settling in the crevices where the missing front cover once protected them. If the manuscript had been written after this warping occurred, the forger would have had to press down hard to achieve the straight lines visible in the text. Such pressure would almost certainly have resulted in ink blots or smudging, and the pages might have buckled further under the weight of the pen. Yet, the manuscript shows no signs of these telltale marks. The lines remain even and consistent, suggesting that the writing was done when the pages were still flat.

A closer look at the top-right corner of the second page (the third in the manuscript) reinforces this conclusion. The bent-over corner matches exactly with the corresponding fold on the first blank page, a clear indication that these two pages curled together gradually over time. This further supports the argument that the manuscript was written before the curling occurred. If Smith—or anyone else—had attempted to write on these pages after they had warped, the precision of the handwriting would have been compromised. But the manuscript’s text shows no such compromises, suggesting that the writing was completed long before the pages began to buckle and fray.

The missing front cover of the Vossius volume also plays a crucial role in this analysis. Without the cover, the first few pages of the book would have been exposed to moisture and temperature changes—conditions that accelerate curling. This exposure likely explains the curling of the rear blank pages, which began only after the front cover was lost. If the manuscript had been inserted into the Vossius volume recently, as some skeptics claim, the curling patterns would not align in the way they do now.

This brings me to the heart of the matter. The skeptics argue that Smith forged the manuscript shortly before taking the photographs, hoping to pass it off as a genuine ancient text. But the physical evidence from the photos makes this theory untenable. The warped pages, the alignment of the edges, and the absence of ink blots all point to a different timeline—one in which the manuscript was written while the pages were still flat and even. This suggests that the text predates Smith’s discovery and that it was written into the Vossius volume well before he arrived at Mar Saba.

Finally, I want to address one last question. If a forger had pressed down on the warped pages to write the manuscript, would the paper show additional signs of buckling? My guess is that it would. Air pockets would have formed beneath the pen, and the ink would have pooled unevenly along the ridges. But none of these signs are present in the

manuscript. This absence strengthens the case that the text was written before the warping occurred, at a time when the pages lay flat and uncurled. In conclusion, the accumulated evidence from these photographs suggests that the manuscript was not written by Smith, nor was it forged shortly before the photos were taken. The physical state of the pages points to a different timeline—one that predates Smith’s involvement and places the manuscript’s origin in an earlier period. This conclusion doesn’t settle all the questions surrounding the manuscript, but it does cast serious doubt on the theory of Smith’s forgery. For now, at least, the manuscript’s provenance remains an open question, waiting for further investigation.